The Places of Worship Act, 1991, was established with a clear purpose: to preserve the religious character of places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947, and to discourage the rekindling of historical disputes. By doing so, the Act sought to maintain communal harmony and prevent the reopening of historical grievances. Justice Katju accused Justice Chandrachud of undermining this legislative intent by allowing inquiries into the religious character of certain structures, despite the explicit provisions of the Act. Katju went so far as to describe this as a "dishonest sleight of hand," alleging that such judicial interpretations provided the groundwork for widespread litigations and the targeting of Muslim shrines.

More recently senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh also flagged Justice Chandachud’s observations while hearing a petition about the Gyanvapi mosque dispute in May 2022 as having opened a ‘Pandora’s box’. Ramesh specifically attributed the trouble over the Sambhal mosque to the ex-CJI’s oral remarks made during the hearing of the Gyanvapi case. In the controversial remarks, Chandrachud had taken the position that the Places of Worship Act did not bar an examination of the religious character of a structure as it stood on August 15, 1947, as provided for in the law.

In the weeks following the Gyanvapi mosque case hearing in May 2022, a spate of demands for surveys of religious structures emerged, threatening to inflame communal tensions across the country. The Supreme Court was ultimately compelled to intervene by ordering a moratorium on new civil suits and restraining courts from issuing further orders in pending cases. This step was an acknowledgment of the growing unrest and a response to the potential for further destabilization.

For those closely observing Chandrachud's tenure, these controversies did not emerge in isolation but rather as part of a broader pattern. Critics have argued that the former CJI demonstrated an increasing tendency to express his personal beliefs in ways that raised questions about the impartiality of his judgments. While the role of a judge is to interpret and apply the law devoid of personal bias, Chandrachud’s actions, particularly towards the latter part of his tenure, have drawn scrutiny for potentially crossing this line.

For instance, his public confession about praying to God for a resolution to the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute revealed a deeply personal dimension to his engagement with one of India’s most contentious legal matters. That he credited divine intervention for the resolution, when the deity in question was a litigant in the case, was an extraordinary admission. While the affected parties in the case showed equanimity and refrained from escalating the issue, the episode nonetheless raised eyebrows about the intersection of personal faith and judicial responsibility.

Chandrachud’s public display of religiosity has also been a point of contention. His hosting of a Ganesh pooja at his residence and extending an invitation to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to attend the event was perceived by some as an unnecessary and inappropriate move for a serving Chief Justice. Although the controversy did not escalate significantly, it fuelled perceptions of a blurred line between Chandrachud’s private beliefs and his public role. As a devout Hindu, Chandrachud’s adherence to personal religious practices is entirely legitimate and beyond reproach. However, his actions in his official capacity should have remained strictly within the boundaries of constitutional and judicial propriety. Critics argue that his visible expression of religious identity risked eroding the perception of neutrality that is foundational to the judiciary's credibility.

The broader implications of these controversies extend beyond individual cases or incidents. The judiciary, as an institution, derives its authority from its independence, impartiality, and adherence to the rule of law. Any suggestion that a judge’s personal beliefs influence their judicial conduct undermines public confidence in the institution. Chandrachud’s remarks and actions have provided fertile ground for such perceptions. Whether in his judicial pronouncements or public interactions, the ex-CJI’s blending of personal faith with professional duty has fuelled a debate about the role of individual belief systems in shaping the jurisprudence of a secular democracy.

This debate is particularly relevant in the context of India’s pluralistic and diverse society, where communal sensitivities can be easily inflamed. The Places of Worship Act, 1991, was designed precisely to prevent the exploitation of historical grievances for political or social gain. By appearing to dilute the protections enshrined in the Act, Chandrachud’s actions are seen to have introduced a destabilizing element into an already volatile landscape. While the law allows for nuanced interpretations, such interpretations must be guided by a commitment to justice and societal harmony. Critics argue that Chandrachud’s approach, in this case, veered dangerously close to privileging personal conviction over constitutional mandate.

Supporters of the ex-CJI might contend that his interpretations were rooted in an honest attempt to navigate complex legal terrain. They might argue that the judiciary cannot shy away from addressing difficult questions, even if they provoke discomfort or controversy. However, the line between addressing legal complexities and creating avoidable unrest is a fine one. In Chandrachud’s case, critics assert that this line was crossed, resulting in consequences that the judiciary is still grappling with.

Ultimately, the controversies surrounding Justice Chandrachud underscore the critical importance of judicial restraint and the separation of personal beliefs from professional responsibilities. While it is neither possible nor desirable to expect judges to abandon their personal identities, the sanctity of the judicial process depends on their ability to transcend these identities in their official capacities.

The former CJI’s tenure, marked by moments of brilliance as well as contentious decisions, offers a cautionary tale about the challenges of maintaining this balance. It serves as a reminder that the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution requires unwavering commitment to impartiality, even in the face of deeply held personal convictions. The controversies that followed Chandrachud’s tenure illustrate the high stakes involved when this delicate equilibrium is disrupted. (IPA Service)